Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
For smuggled notified gold recovered from premises under a person's possession or control, the burden shifts to that person to prove lawful import, procurement or possession. On the facts recorded, no documents or plausible explanation supported licit storage, and the surrounding circumstances independently showed keeping, harbouring and dealing with goods liable to confiscation, so liability under sections 112(a) and 112(b) was sustained. The penalty was nevertheless reduced because the seized gold lacked foreign markings and the departmental statements had not satisfied the safeguards contemplated by section 138B, making those factors relevant to quantum but not to exoneration. The appeal was partly allowed only on penalty.
For smuggled notified gold recovered from premises under a person's possession or control, the burden shifts to that person to prove lawful import, procurement or possession. On the facts recorded, no documents or plausible explanation supported licit storage, and the surrounding circumstances independently showed keeping, harbouring and dealing with goods liable to confiscation, so liability under sections 112(a) and 112(b) was sustained. The penalty was nevertheless reduced because the seized gold lacked foreign markings and the departmental statements had not satisfied the safeguards contemplated by section 138B, making those factors relevant to quantum but not to exoneration. The appeal was partly allowed only on penalty.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
